Court Grants Drake Access To Kendrick Lamar’s Contracts In Defamation Case: In a recent development in the ongoing legal battle between Drake and Universal Music Group (UMG), the Canadian rapper has been granted access to sensitive record company documents in his defamation lawsuit. Drake is seeking copies of Kendrick Lamar’s recording contract with UMG and information about the salaries and bonuses of senior executives at the company.
The lawsuit stems from Drake’s accusations that Lamar’s song Not Like Us defames his character by falsely suggesting that he is a paedophile. This lawsuit is just the latest in a series of legal and personal disputes between Drake and Lamar, which have escalated into a high-profile legal confrontation. Drake’s team is pursuing documents that they believe will help substantiate their claims against UMG, including “all contracts between UMG and Kendrick Lamar” as well as the financial arrangements surrounding senior record label staff.
These documents are important to Drake’s case because they could reveal whether UMG had a vested interest in the song’s commercial success and whether they ignored potential reputational harm to Drake in favor of profits. The specifics of the financial dealings between Lamar, UMG, and streaming platforms like Spotify are also central to Drake’s allegations of defamation and improper conduct by the record company.
The controversy centers on Lamar’s song Not Like Us, in which he targets Drake and his entourage with accusations of paedophilia, calling them “certified paedophiles” who should “be registered and placed on neighborhood watch.” Drake claims that these lyrics are not only false but that UMG, as the distributor and promoter of the song, was fully aware of the harm these accusations would cause but proceeded to amplify them for commercial gain.
According to court documents, Drake is alleging that the record company colluded with Spotify to falsely inflate streaming numbers for Not Like Us in an attempt to maximize profits. Both UMG and Spotify have denied these claims. Drake’s lawsuit also emphasizes that UMG allowed the song to be published despite knowing that Lamar’s lyrics were defamatory.
The lawsuit asserts that UMG’s decision to allow the song to be distributed and promoted contributed to spreading a “false and malicious narrative” about Drake, damaging his reputation. This case is particularly significant because Drake and UMG have had a long-standing relationship, with Drake being one of the most prominent artists signed to the label for over a decade.
The fact that Drake is now suing UMG for defamation marks a major shift in their relationship and highlights the intensity of the ongoing feud between him and Lamar. UMG, in its defense, has filed a motion to dismiss the case, describing Drake’s lawsuit as an “illogical” attempt to suppress Lamar’s creative expression. The company argues that the legal process is being weaponized by Drake to silence an artist’s freedom of speech and expression.
UMG also points out that Drake willingly participated in the rap battle with Lamar, where the conflict between the two was played out through their music. In the eyes of UMG, the lawsuit is an attempt by Drake to recoup damages after “losing” the rap battle that he had initiated. The label further contends that the claims Drake is making are not only untrue but that the very notion of UMG attempting to harm Drake’s reputation is absurd.
UMG’s argument rests on the idea that rap music, particularly in the context of a back-and-forth battle, is often full of exaggerated claims and artistic expressions that should not be taken literally. The label’s lawyers argue that Drake should have expected these kinds of lyrical attacks as part of the genre and the culture of rap battles, which have long been a staple of the industry.
Despite UMG’s objections, Judge Jeannette A. Vargas ruled in favor of allowing discovery to continue, which means Drake’s legal team will be able to access the documents they requested. Michael Gottlieb, Drake’s lead lawyer, celebrated the judge’s decision, calling it an important step toward uncovering what UMG might be trying to conceal.
According to Gottlieb, this ruling gives Drake’s legal team the ability to further investigate whether UMG’s actions were motivated by financial gain, rather than genuine concerns about artistic integrity or free speech. Drake’s team has emphasized the importance of the discovery process in building their case.
They are particularly focused on obtaining any documentation that could prove that UMG was aware of the defamatory nature of Lamar’s lyrics but chose to promote the song anyway in order to capitalize on its commercial success. In addition to the contracts and salary information, Drake’s legal team is also seeking any communication between UMG and Lamar regarding the release of Not Like Us, as well as any documents related to the song’s promotion and streaming performance.
The legal battle is also playing out against the backdrop of the ongoing public feud between Drake and Lamar. The two artists have had a long history of tension, with their rivalry coming to a head in recent years through a series of diss tracks and public insults. In 2023, Drake released a track that accused Lamar of domestic abuse, which Lamar responded to with Not Like Us, escalating the feud even further.
The song quickly became a major commercial hit, marking Lamar’s first number-one single in the UK and gaining widespread attention when he performed it at the Super Bowl Halftime Show in February 2024. This public success has only intensified the legal conflict, as Drake now argues that UMG has helped fuel the controversy for profit, while simultaneously harming his personal and professional reputation.
The case is set to continue with a hearing scheduled for June 30, where the judge will consider whether UMG’s motion to dismiss the case will be granted. Until then, Drake’s legal team will continue to gather evidence, and the fight between the two rap giants seems far from over. Whether or not Drake will ultimately succeed in his lawsuit remains to be seen, but this case represents a critical moment in the intersection of music, free speech, and defamation law, especially in the context of the highly competitive and often combative world of rap music.
For now, all eyes are on the discovery process and what the documents may reveal about UMG’s role in promoting a song that Drake claims has caused him significant harm. The outcome of this case could set a major precedent for future disputes in the music industry, particularly when it comes to the limits of artistic expression and the responsibility of record labels in managing potentially defamatory content.
